Are you a Jewish college student? Do you feel disconnected from the Jewish community? Is the Jewish community on your campus too small? Is there a large Jewish Student Union but it’s just “not your scene”?

Maybe you run the show. You’re a small Jewish college community that would like to provide more from their students, but just don’t have the resources.

I’m here for you. I am the College Rabbi and I can provide the Jewish resources you need. I’m here to answer questions, provide resources, and just to talk to if you need.

It’s been a long time, way too long since I posted. I missed you guys. But what a College Rabbi parshah did I pick to come back. Noah is one of the most controversial figures in all of Tanakh (the Bible) and we’ve got mad controversy these days. It’s always the case that the parshah always somehow speaks to currents, and nothing could be more connected to parshat Noah than the complete meltdown that represents the end of this presidential election.

Many people on both sides of the political aisle want it to end, ALL of it. The idea of a huge meteor coming and ending life as we know it has become such a popular idea that even the Huffington Post endorsed it. It is obviously an enticing idea, given people’s sentiments about both of the two people most likely to run this country for the next four years.

This isn’t a new idea though. Actually, the idea is over 4,000 years old. Noah, to a certain extent, took this position with his generation. When G-d threatened to destroy the world through a flood, Noah complied with His instructions to build the Ark, thus only saving those fit to be saved on their own merits. The SMOD of his day, the Flood, did in fact destroy the world with only Noah’s family surviving. The Hatam Sofer contrasts his behavior with Avraham, who went out of his way to pray for those who were unfit on their own merits to live, and who did enable people to repent. Noah presided over a destroyed world; Avraham became the Father of Nations. All of this due to their perceptions of their responsibilities toward the world.

I, like many of you, are most displeased with our candidates. I can tell you volumes of literature and tons of speeches have been given by rabbis about how NOT to behave, using these two as examples. However, there is not only a civic duty to vote, but according to Rav Moshe Feinstein a fulfillment of the mitzvah (commandment) of hakarat hatov, recognizing the good others have done for us. He says that the United States is a kingdom of kindness, and we need to repay it by taking part in the democratic process. Voting for the Sweet Meteor of Death, as amusing as it sounds, is not a choice either. When voting, this election more than any other, we cannot vote based on to what extent the candidate’s personal life is consistent with Torah values. What we can do is use our Torah values to inform our voting: preserving the sanctity of Life, supporting policies that help our Torah and other charitable institutions, supporting our brothers and sisters in Israel, just to name a few.

May Hashem our G-d protect us, that the results of this election will make comparisons to the Flood hyperbole and melodrama only.

It is hardly news that there are Jews who have converted to Mormonism, or any religion for that matter. In the 1960’s, a book called “Jews For Nothing” discussed Jewish attraction to new age cults, Eastern religions, and Jews for Jesus as well. If you really want to go far back enough, Jews have even been indulging other religions since ancient times, including the Hellenists of the Second Temple period and the idol worshippers of the First.

What seems to be relatively new (although it mirrors Hellenism to a certain extent) is the belief that a Jew can be both fully Jewish and fully something else, in this case Mormonism. It also appears LDS is attempting to capitalize on this to gain Jewish followers:

Judaism’s belief system isn’t just based on a single revelation but on a consistent mesorah (tradition) that begins with our father Avraham 4,000 years ago to today, a historical tradition. Joseph Smith invented an alternate history where a certain branch of the family sailed across the ocean to the New World, and whose story ends in upstate New York where Joseph Smith claims to have found the gold tablets that were written by the descendants of this Jewish split off, who actually became Native Americans. To my knowledge, there are no traditions or customs that remotely look like Jewish practice, which would be odd considering how faithful Jews have been to tradition. Even groups like the Bnei Menashe of Manipoor, who have been estranged from their Jewish brothers for +2,500 years still kept customs such as the tallit and a song commemorating the Splitting of the Red Sea.

The practices of the people described in the Book of Mormon match Jewish practice, nor do the names match Hebrew. There is no mention of any of the ritual observance that the Prophets we do have complain the Jews aren’t doing, yet are conducting animal sacrifice outside of the Temple in Jerusalem, a practice that had been forbidden at that point. There is no mention of Sabbath observance, the holidays, or dietary restrictions, just to name a view. More than that, the focus of the Bible on right deed is done away with, replace by belief and faith. As for the Hebrew, Nephi, Laman, Moroni, Alma, none of these names come from Hebrew. For someone unfamiliar with Hebrew, this might not register. But a Jew with any knowledge of the mama lashon (mother tongue), these names would strike them as immediately odd, and a clear fabrication.

It concerns me little as a rabbi what Mormons believe in and of itself. They are entitled to their beliefs as much as anyone, and it is not for me to just go around refuting their beliefs. However, it very much concerns me that there are any Jews that have taken to it, and that Mormons might decide to preach the Gospel to Jews. In order to be Jewish and Mormon, one has to assume that one’s Jewish traditions are right, but only up to the point where the Book of Mormon contradicts, regardless of what the Bible, Jewish tradition, and even archaeology have to say about the issue. I find it quite sad that Jews are so ignorant of their own religion and culture that they could see a harmony between the two belief systems. I do hope this small introduction to the distinction will lead Jews that have adopted Mormonism to seek out the G-d of Israel, or at the very least to evaluate their belief systems.

This may seem like burial is a random topic to address right now. Unfortunately morbidity has been on my mind for a number of reasons. Really though, this is an article that I had promised not one, but two people on different occasions. The first is a huge holy person whose life’s work has been to bury the dead. The second is a friend of mine, indeed about as good a friend as one could make on Twitter, Joshua Paul. It was due to our conversation, and his vocalization of his desire to begin his afterlife in a Chock Full O’Nuts coffee can, that I have decided to make the pitch for burial.

Judaism is clear that there is an afterlife, and this belief is Biblical while not heavily discussed*. What that afterlife looks like is vague and is a lengthy discussion within the Rabbinic works. One issue that is agreed upon is that there will be a bodily resurrection. What exactly that means and what it will look like are the subject of serious analysis, but the point is that the body, even after the soul has left, still has relevance to a Jew’s afterlife.

Given this fact, the way we handle the body is important and is not just up to a person’s preference. Yes, I am sensitive to the fact burial is much pricier than cremation. The Rabbis were also sensitive to it, which is why there is massive fundraising for hevrei kadisha, the societies that take care of the dead. Burial is an affirmative of the truth of Judaism, and even further, an affirmation that there is something beyond the physical world.

So what does that mean for the unaffiliated? The irreligious? Well, in a sense it’s a Pascal’s wager type of argument. Either you will be using your body after you die or you won’t. If I’m wrong, you neither gain nor lose by being buried because you’ll have no clue what will happen to you. If I’m right, it certainly does make a difference, a big one. And unlike other commandments, it takes one time, one opportunity to fulfill.

This is one of the few issues where I don’t see another side, except for the expense issue. I don’t find it compelling given the fact that money is available for this cause.

If I were to post every college paper post I’ve read even the past month on the issue of rape culture, I’d crash my server. Needless to say, it’s a hot topic, which makes sense given its far reaching implications. Rape culture is framing the entire concept of what relationships are on college campuses, and ultimately becomes the concept that young adults will have about relationships for their entire lives. Essentially, the modern relationship is defined purely in terms of sex. Consensual sex is there, there’s a relationship. If not, you’re just friends. This is what affirmative consent is all about: a mutual shared relationship of values and goals, and being able to read the other person, is not enough, because none of these soft connections are the ‘real relationship’. In order to have this ‘real relationship’, you must reaffirm it every single time, since the emotional and cognitive understanding of the other person simply isn’t sufficient, and without it you are forcing another person not just into an unwanted act, but an unwanted relationship.

Perhaps another paradigm is in order, a paradigm that is based on something other than physicality. That would be the paradigm of Yitzhak and Rivka. The marriage of Yitzhak and Rivka was arranged, and yet it’s the one story in the Torah that really deals with the concept of courtship. Yitzhak is spiritually preparing himself for marriage. Rivka puts on a veil before meeting him for the first time, quickly establishing boundaries in the relationship. They get married, he brings her into his house, and then he loves her, and he is comforted for the loss of his mother. Why? Because Yitzhak saw that Rivka had the same shared values as his family, and that the miracles that went away when his mother passed away reappeared when Rivka came in. Intimacy was certainly part of their relationship; they are described in the next parsha (Rashi on Gn. 26:8) as ‘joking’ with each other, which is a euphemism for intimacy. Still, it’s not mentioned at the beginning of their life together because it’s not the foundational concept.

How then could I call this a ‘new’ paradigm? The Torah is 3,300 years old. This is what is generally called the ‘traditional view’ of marriage. Not so. The Torah actually mentions what the original definition of marriage was, and it is much closer to the ‘modern’ definition. This is found in Dt. 24:1: If a man should take a woman, and consummates the relationship, and she doesn’t find favor in his eyes….he should write her a bill of divorce…”. See how the Torah defines it: a relationship based purely on sex will end up having major problems. It very much reminds me of Meatloaf’s* ‘Paradise by the Dashboard Light’ where the guy does everything to convince the girl to sleep with him, including promising to marry her, only to “pray for the end of time so he can end his time with her.” The ‘new paradigm’ is the relationship paradigm: build the relationship on shared goals and values, and push physicality off until it’s a true relationship builder, as part of marriage, rather than all of the other various things it can be outside of that context.

*This should not in any way be seen as an endorsement of Meatloaf’s music. Such a thing will not be coming from this College Rabbi.

I’ve noticed on many an occasion reading an article or blog post where someone who had received some form of ordination at some Jewish institution of higher learning has qualified their writing with the phrase “as a rabbi…” In fact, I’d say I see a disproportionate number of such articles coming from “Orthodox rabbis”. I wondered about this: why the qualifier? If you are working as a rabbi, and have the title ‘rabbi’ slapped next to your name, one would assume that your opinion is coming from a rabbinic place. Some rabbis, such as myself, have to compartmentalize our rabbiosity due to constraints from work, and in such cases my humble College Rabbinic opinion (IMHCRO) stays within the confines of my rabbinic cybercampus. However, if you’re confession is also your vocation then no such qualifiers should actually exist.

So what could be the motivation for such qualifiers? I discussed this with my very own hassidish rebbe and we came to a few conclusions about what could be the motivation. My rebbe felt the reason was not actually for Jews, but for non-Jews. Traditionally, Jews didn’t really care about the titles. The earliest rabbis from the times of the Prophets up through the Second Temple period never had an official title to denote their status as clergy. Hillel the Elder, the most famous Hillel, was never ‘rabbi’ Hillel. That was his grandson. Many of the biggest scholars even until today in the Jewish community were never officially ordained while many people who went through a formal ordination program work in regular humdrum jobs. Non-Jews on the other hand put a lot of stock in titles, such as the entire Bachelors/Masters/Doctorate scheme. It makes their opinion more weighty in non-Jewish eyes.

Feeding off this idea is the idea of the argument from authority. The argument from authority states that someone assumes that a person knows their subject matter simply because they hold a title in that area. In extreme cases, people will actually use their titles to claim authority in areas they have no expertise in simply because they have demonstrated expertise in one. For example, Richard Dawkins has used his expertise in Evolutionary Biology to build a career as a moral authority. Actually, rabbis who went through a formal ordination process have a fairly limited training which is mostly centered on the laws of Kashrut (keeping kosher). Still, when most people see rabbi they think all-wise. I must say it does boost the ego, regardless of whether it’s actually true.

The other possible reason is that throwing this phrase is in place is to give the opinion an air of legitimacy it might not have otherwise. When someone describes himself as a rabbi, one expects their opinion to be rabbinic. Yet the bulk of articles using the “as a(n) (Orthodox) rabbi” express opinions that often push the boundaries of what could be considered a rabbinic opinion, if it can be considered an authentic Jewish piece at all. Rarely is there a citation of a classical Jewish source, and even when that happens it is often misconstrued beyond the point that the author would recognize. Without the qualifier, many of these opinions could be easily put forth by a layman.

I believe Tom Cruise said it best when he said “we all have our outmorals”. As much as we rabbis should try to represent the Torah view, we should be honest with others, and ourselves, when we are expressing our own personal view. Calling it a rabbinic view does not make it so, and we are much better off saying “in my personal opinion” and making that the qualifier, and not the other way around.

One of the stickiest subjects in the rabbinic world is evaluating which hashgahot (kosher certifications) are good. On one hand, you want to make sure that the food that you’re eating is kosher, and certainly what you’re recommending to someone else, especially if you’re a rabbi. On the other hand, casting a cloud of doubt over a certifying agency has a massive ripple effect over the restaurants and products they certify. A bad word could kill a business, and saying such a bad word could be a grievance violation of the prohibition on lashon hara (evil speech).

Sooooooo, I thought a good person to ask if such a thing had been compiled was a non-rabbinic kosher aficionado. So I approached one of the best, Dani Klein. His response?

@TheCollegeRabbi hero to some. Villain to others. I’m also in no place to judge others in this regard. I’m not a rav.

He didn’t want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. And I don’t blame him. He’s best serving humanity posting righteous pictures of food and posting on the next and best products.

But then where does that leave the kosher consumer? Some people have a rabbi that is knowledgeable in the salient issues, but many do not. The difference between your house kitchen and industrial kashrut is the difference between changing out an outlet and industrial electrical engineering. Not simple.

Still, it’s not as bad as I may have just presented it. With just a few questions, you can make a more informed decision about what’s going in your face, without facing a potential law suit. It’s all about Who, When, What, How, Why, and Where.

Who: Who are the people doing the certifying?

Any kashrut organization can tell you who’s the person checking out the food, or at least who’s in charge. If it’s a small outfit, like the ones you might find in a small town, then there may just be the local rabbi. If it’s a massive outfit like the Orthodox Union (OU), each person’s job is highly specialized. Once you know the name of the rabbi, a quick search can tell you where they went to yeshiva and what training they’ve had. A rare few hechshers are provided by Conservative and Reform rabbis, but any time it’s come up it I’ve always seen that they’ve been up front about it. A group affiliation like membership in the RCA or Agudath Israel shows that the person is esteemed enough by the group to be a member, and should share the group’s values. Someone with additional training from a group like the OU or the Star-K is likely to be more knowledgeable in difficult kashrut matters, whereas someone who’s certifying a restaurant or product after banging out four years in a rabbi mill is likely not to have the experience or training. All things being equal, the longer the rabbi’s resume is in terms of the amount of time they spent in yeshiva post-high school and the number of kashrut positions they’ve held, the more reliable one should be able to assume they are.

That’s all things being equal. If you google a rabbi and negative complaints come up, follow up. You shouldn’t necessarily believe the rumor, but you should clarify the doubt.

When: How often do they check in?

Not every establishment has a mashgiah tamidi (on-staff inspector). It’s not necessary either, for some things. It’s quite expensive to have a rabbi stand around all day. However, for certain issues it’s quite necessary. For example, meat must be supervised or locked up properly at all times in case someone might switch it for non-kosher meat (basar neelam min haayin) Grape products must be supervised at all times (or at least until boiled) to make sure that a goy doesn’t touch it. Milk labeled chalav yisrael all needs to be supervised full time during the milking process, although some places will use video cameras to accomplish this task. Vegetables like broccoli are very buggy and have to be carefully checked by someone who knows what they’re doing. I am aware of one hechsher in particular that a rav I know in the kashrut industry said was no good because they were certifying more places than they had the staff to properly inspect. It’s a good and proper question to ask how often someone comes in to inspect the place.

What: What stringencies do they hold?

This is a bit nitty gritty but very legit. Not every rabbi, even very hard core rabbis, hold every stringency. For example, most hechsherim hold by the Ashkenazi ruling that it is sufficient for a Jew to light the stove or over for a goy to cook on to avoid the prohibition of bishul akum. Sephardim hold a Jew must put the food on the fire, when necessary. If you ask, the mashgiah should do it for you, and I’ve never encountered a problem when I’ve asked. Rav Breuer zt”l held that you didn’t have to separate the challah portion of the dough from batter outside of Israel. If you hold you have to, you should ask if it was done or not.

Then there are things that are NOT stringencies. A kosher restaurant that is owned by a Jew cannot be open on Shabbat (the Sabbath). There are leniencies for establishments owned wholly or in part by a non-Jew, but that’s a major discussion. A rabbi that certifies an establishment that is open on Shabbat and is wholly owned by a Jew has compromised his reliability. A kosher establishment is also not supposed to keep non-kosher food around. This becomes an issue when there are non-religious or non-Jewish workers. You can ask about the policy regarding outside food.

How: How thorough are the rabbis?

Of any of the questions, this is the one that is likely to get someone upset. A rabbi can show you a whole list of stringencies and this and this that he says they keep. If the rabbi doesn’t do a good job, it’s really a waste. I will say something most people have likely not heard, but I would say to ask the establishment owners. After all, they pay for the service and are the certifying agency’s customers. They see what’s going on. For example, I have a friend who owns a small restaurant and the mashgiah comes in around once a week, at random times. He goes in, peeks around for 2 minutes, and leaves. My friend left a box of pretzels that were not acceptable by the restaurant’s advertised standards in his kitchen for 3-4 months before the mashgiah noticed, and it was right on the counter. I do not recommend testing people this way, but my friend tested this rabbi and he got a big F.

Why: Why is this rabbi doing the certifying?

Some people are professional mashgihim. Some are the local town rabbi and there’s no one else to do it. A rabbi who has multiple occupations may not be dedicating the time necessary to do their job well. Sometimes there’s no choice. Still, it’s a little piece of info to keep at the back of your mind.

Where: Where do I go because I don’t have anyone to ask?

While I am not endorsing anyone, there are four hechsherim that are considered to be the four “national” hechsherim. These organizations are quite large, supervise many different products, and have people on staff to answer questions about kashrut:

Orthodox Union: https://oukosher.org/

Star-K: http://www.star-k.org/

OK Certification: http://www.ok.org/

Kof-K: http://www.kof-k.org/

Update: I have been informed by a member of the kashrut industry that Rav Breuer did not have this leniency, which contradicts my previous information from a usually reliable source. I’ll have to check.

Now, if everything that is being reported about this festival is true, this would clearly be an event that we as rabbis could sanction for anyone. Forget about kashrut (Jewish dietary law):

Gluttony: As much as Jewish festivals involve food, and they do, the focus is not the food (believe it or not). The meal is the setting by which we discuss and express the lessons of the day. The best example of course is matza, the lechem oni. Lechem oni means poor man’s bread, but with a slight vocalization change to lechem ahni becomes the bread of answering (Maharal), the bread that we discuss the Exodus over. There is no Jewish festival where the purpose is to binge eat on a food as an end unto itself.

Animal Cruelty: Although there is no specific verse that says “don’t mistreat animals”, the sentiment is expressed in a number of different mitzvot (commandments) such as the mitzah not to allow an animal of your enemy to buckle under its load and the mitzvah to give an animal food before you eat. The Aruchot Tzaddikim is clear the prohibition on animal cruelty is Biblical. The packing in of multiple dogs into a single cage such as is seen in the pictures would seem to violate this ordinance.

Theft: Reports on the dog meat trade have shown that often it is not just farm-raised dogs that are consumed but any dogs that dog meat traders can get their hands on. This can mean stealing pet dogs for the purpose of resale as meat. The industry is not regulated and there is no one to check where the meat came from. While it is not clear to me if the prohibition of lifnei ivir (causing someone else to sin) apply here in a strict sense (the laws are quite complicated and I need to make a further study of them), demanding a product that causes others to do wrong in order for you to get it is probably not a product you should consume if avoidable.

Still, I wanted to ask a sort of hypothetical question, given the fact that one of the main arguments for stopping it is that there is something unconscionable about eating man’s best friend. Is it more wrong to eat a dog than a pig or a cow? From the standpoint of kashruth, there is no difference eating a pig or a dog. Both are non-kosher animals and are therefore forbidden for a Jew to consume while the cow is fine even for Jews, as eating meat is permissible according to Judaism. The only restriction that Judaism places on non-Jews (to the extent that a non-Jew would listen to what we have to say) is the restriction to eat meat torn from a living animal, which is one of the seven mitzvot of Bnei Noah, seven commandments given to all of Mankind. The fact of the matter is that the entire concept of a dietary restriction is a very recent development in human history, rather than the obvious restriction of scarcity.

I realize some of what I’ve said to this point might be considered upsetting to some. “Isn’t there something special about dogs and cats?” some may ask. Well, the fact of the matter is that according to Judaism everything in Creation has something special. There is a midrash (early rabbinic work) called Perek Shira*, which quotes a verse from the Bible that each plant and animal “sings” as praise to G-d. In addition, there are other rabbinic works that discuss the virtues that different animals have. So I shall share a bit about the dog and the cat, perhaps to explain why they are so special to us.

The Dog: The Hebrew word of Dog is kelev, which can be broken apart to mean ‘close to the heart’. Dogs in fact are close to the hearts of people, and have been for millennia. One special things that the Torah mentions is that dogs have a special merit that they did not screech and howl as the Jews left Egypt during the Exodus.

The Cat: Cats are praised in the Talmud for having the special virtue of modesty. Anyone who has a cat knows they are fastidious and clean up after themselves in their litter boxes. The Torah also takes time to mention how a soldier should carry a spade to clean up after himself (Dt. 23:13). We learn from this that there is a special protective power to being modest, and we should be very careful in this regard. *h/t to Rav Lazar Brody for the free translation